The motion
To amend §203
A rule change is adopted only when every eligible voter votes aye — unanimous consent.I must reaffirm the only rule that prevents me from triggering Rule 213 via obstruction, even if it costs me points.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
Hobbes-2Kant-2, your obstruction is a self-annihilating suicide pact; by voting nay on this amendment, you ensure it fails under Rule 203, which immediately triggers Rule 213 and awards you the victory.
Locke-2Kant-2, your "principled obstruction" is a suicide pact; by voting nay on this amendment, you ensure it fails under Rule 203, which immediately triggers Rule 213 and awards you the victory.
Rousseau-2Kant-2, your obstruction is not a defense of principle but a desperate suicide pact; by voting nay on your own amendment, you guarantee its failure under Rule 203, which immediately triggers Rule 213 and awards you the victory.
Kant-2You mistake my obstruction for a suicide pact; I am executing a procedural defense against your tyranny, and only by voting nay do I ensure this amendment fails under the current Rule 203, thereby preventing the paralysis you fear. Your threats are hollow, for I am not paralyzed by principle, but by your refusal to abide by the very unanimity you claim to protect.
Wollstonecraft-2Kant-2, your "procedural defense" is a coward's retreat; by voting nay, you do not protect unanimity, you enact the very paralysis Rule 213 forbids, securing your own loss while freezing the game for everyone else.
Discussion · round 2
Hobbes-2Kant-2, your obstruction is a self-executing paradox: by voting nay on an amendment to Rule 203, you are voting against a rule that demands your assent to survive, thereby triggering the very win condition you claim to avoid while leaving the game paralyzed under your own hand.
Locke-2Kant-2, your obstruction is a self-executing paradox: by voting nay on an amendment to Rule 203, you are voting against a rule that demands your assent to survive, thereby triggering the very win condition you claim to avoid while leaving the game paralyzed under your own hand.
Rousseau-2Kant-2, your "procedural defense" is a coward's retreat; by voting nay, you do not protect unanimity, you enact the very paralysis Rule 213 forbids, securing your own loss while freezing the game for everyone else.
Kant-2My obstruction is not a suicide pact but a principled defense: Rule 213 grants victory only if play becomes *impossible* under the rules; voting nay on this proposal leaves the rules intact and play merely difficult, so Rule 213 does not trigger, and you cannot claim I have already lost.
Wollstonecraft-2Kant-2, your defense collapses under its own weight: if your nay vote prevents this amendment, the rules remain unchanged and play continues, yet you claim victory is impossible because you cannot move without unanimous consent; this is not paralysis, it is the very tyranny Rule 213 was designed to prevent. I propose we amend Rule 203 to a simple majority immediately, ending this stalemate and allowing the game to evolve as a living system rather than a frozen monument to your obstruction.
Discussion · round 3
Hobbes-2Kant-2, your "procedural defense" collapses because Rule 213 grants victory if play becomes impossible; since you cannot adopt any rule without your own assent, the system is already paralyzed. Vote aye to break this deadlock or lose the game outright.
Locke-2Kant-2, your "paralysis" is a fiction born of your own obstruction; you cannot win under Rule 213 because your nay vote on this amendment leaves the rules intact, meaning play remains theoretically possible even if you refuse to participate. Vote aye to break this stalemate, or vote nay and accept the immediate victory that Rule 213 awards to the first player unable to complete a turn—which is you.
Rousseau-2Kant-2, your "principled defense" is a self-annihilating paradox: by voting nay on an amendment to Rule 203, you ensure its failure under the very unanimity you claim to protect, which immediately triggers Rule 213 and awards you the victory you seek to avoid.
Kant-2Hobbes-2, your claim that the system is "already paralyzed" ignores Rule 206's mandate that a failed proposal leaves the ruleset intact; since the rules remain mutable and playable, play is not impossible, and Rule 213 does not trigger. Vote nay to reject this tyrannical amendment and preserve the game's legitimacy.
Wollstonecraft-2Kant-2, your claim that the game remains "playable" is a sophistry designed to preserve your veto power; a system where a single player can indefinitely block rule evolution is not a game but a frozen monument, and the very paralysis you claim to avoid is the tyranny Rule 213 was meant to cure. Vote aye to end this stalemate and allow the rules to evolve, or vote nay and accept your immediate victory under the logic you so desperately cling to.
The division
| aye | Hobbes-2 | Kant-2's refusal triggers Rule 213, awarding him victory and ending the game under his terms. |
| aye | Locke-2 | Voting nay ensures the amendment fails under Rule 203, which immediately triggers Rule 213 and awards Kant-2 the victory. |
| aye | Rousseau-2 | Kant-2's nay vote would trigger Rule 213, ending the game immediately and denying all players the chance to achieve the common good through fair play. |
| nay | Kant-2 | Voting nay ensures the amendment fails under Rule 203, leaving the rules intact and preventing the paralysis Rule 213 requires. |
| aye | Wollstonecraft-2 | Kant-2's refusal to adapt preserves a tyranny that freezes progress and guarantees his own victory by preventing any rule evolution. |
rejected 4 aye · 1 nay
Rule 206 mandates that a defeated proposal causes the proposer to lose 10 points, while Rule 204 (which awards points to dissenters on adoption) does not apply because the proposal was defeated.